Hi Bascule
> thanks tom,
> yes i have 96mb ram, it's a bit unnerving to know that file sizes can be
lied
> about/misreported like that, is it just /dev/ entries that do this ? i
know
> this has confused me before, i'm a gui person really and i need to know
when
> to trust what konq is telling me!
>
> bascule
>
It's not so much that it's lying. It seems that under Linux, everything is
mounted as a file system. My USB is mounted this way, and if theis holds
true for memory, then wouldn't it be conceivable that the file would reflect
tyhe size of the memory? If I'm wrong, or oversimplifying (a relative newbie
myself), then please correct/elabarate.
James
> On Wednesday 03 January 2001 9:30 pm, you wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 January 2001 02:45 pm, bascule wrote:
> > > i have found a file named /dev/core which is approx 95mb (so it is
> > > claimed) which points to /proc/kcore also 95mb in size, this confuses
> > > me on 2 fronts, how could a symlink be 95mb in size and is this
> > > normal, /proc/...being a virtual filesystem - do i need to delete
> > > this file or not
> > >
> > > bascule
> >
> > These aren't really files. Yes, they're vitual, sometimes called
> > pretend files. My /dev/core is 256mb. That's the amount of ram I have.
> > I take it you have 96 ?
> > type 'du -ch /dev/*' (try /proc/* too) and you'll see that most all
> > the 'files' in /dev are -0- byte. The total for the whole /dev
> > directory should only be something over 100k, mostly due to many 1/2k
> > dir listings. Don't delete anything in either /dev or /proc
>
